BT Dump Coalition says TOR “is a sham”
The following is a statement by the Coalition to keep BT Dump Free
Terms of Reference for BT dump environmental assessment ignores Environmental Advisory Board’s advice and best waste management solution for Cayman
While the Coalition to Keep BT Dump Free is hoping that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will confirm its fears and the “great concerns” expressed by the Central Tenders Committee (CTC) about putting a dump in an “environmentally sensitive” area, Coalition leaders wasted no time in denouncing the Term of Reference (TOR) just published for the EIA as a “crippled and biased sham, forced on a muzzled Environmental Advisory Board (EAB)”. According to Mr. Gregg Anderson, a Coalition leader: “Given the extremely limited scope of the TOR, and the people hand-picked by Dart to carry it out, the EIA will more likely rubber-stamp the senseless plan to move the George Town dump to Bodden Town”.
Coalition leader Mr. Charles Clifford, former Minister for the Environment, stated that Government “…muzzled the EAB and crippled its mandate. The EAB was blatantly ordered to draft a severely restricted TOR tailored to accommodate Dart’s desire to get the GT dump ‘out of its backyard’. It was ordered to not identify the best waste management solution for our country”.
According to internal minutes of an EAB meeting of February 16th 2012, revealed in a previous Coalition press release after an FOI request for information, Board members, including the Director of the Department of Environment, recommended a “broader review…to identify the optimal waste management solution for the country through an assessment of alternatives, with input from all stakeholders and public consultation.” They went on to encourage “…an EIA that complies with International best practice, with a wider scope that includes issues such as alternative approaches to solid waste management, and the site selection process”.
In response, in a March 6th memo, Government Ministers “…instructed the EAB to limit the review to the proposals as presented by DRCL (i.e. Dart) and not to carry out a review of the most suitable overall waste management solution for Grand Cayman. Also the Ministers instructed the EAB not to examine alternatives for the location of the WMF in Bodden Town.” The proposed TOR is a result of these orders from Government.
At the same EAB meeting, Board members stated that “…public consultation/stakeholder engagement is necessary early in the project cycle to ensure public acceptance…” Coalition leader Mr. Vincent Frederick claims that this advice has been ignored from the beginning. “Ever since Government dumped the CTC’s recommendation of a waste-to-energy facility at the present dump site in GT, and then embraced the Dart proposal, rated worst of all by the CTC, Government and Dart have proceeded behind our backs, through secrecy, deceit and silence. In fact, Dart started work on the EIA in Midland Acres even before the TOR was published, let alone adopted, and before any public consultation. Government and Dart have treated the BT dump as a ‘done deal’, regardless of any TOR or impact assessment findings or the people’s reaction.”
Furthermore, in regards to who will carry out the EIA, Environmental Advisory Board members suggested that it “…determines the necessary qualifications and expertise with a view to selecting independent consultants…” from “suitably qualified consultant teams”. Mr. Alain Beiner, another Coalition leader “…strongly suspects that the EIA will be conducted by consultants cherry-picked by Dart. How can the people have any faith in the EIA findings, unless the assessment is carried out by unbiased professionals, completely independent of Dart, committed to a scientific study to determine what’s in the best interest of our country and its people? How else will we really know how a dump will impact us?”
“The proposed TOR is a sham,” adds Mr. Clifford, “drafted to disguise Government’s intention to proceed with the BT dump regardless of its consequences for our district, the people of this island and its environment. Since its murky inception, this plan has disregarded due process and good governance. There has been no Planning Authority permission for a dump in our district, no open rezoning process to allow a dump in an environmentally sensitive area presently restricted to residential/agricultural usage, and far removed from the source of most of the island’s waste.
“And, in spite of the magnitude of the Dart proposal”, continues Mr. Clifford, “there has been no public tendering process (or RFP) for the plan. Indeed, inasmuch as there has been any RFP to solve the GT dump problem, Dart’s proposal was soundly rejected. As such, like Premier Bush’s now abandoned plan for cruise berthing facilities, it violates the Framework for Fiscal Responsibility agreement with the UK. As well, it ignores several commitments contained in the Environmental Charter which Bush himself signed with the UK in 2001.”
